Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday that the U.S. has no direct national security interests at stake in Syrias civil war, as he cautioned President Obama against ordering military strikes on the Middle East nation.

Mr. Paul, possibly the leading anti-war Republican in the Senate, said the U.S. should condemn use of chemical weapons  an accusation rebels have made against the Syrian regime  but said if a decision to take military action is made, it should come from Congress, not from the White House.

We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement, he said.

The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States,

Yes, this is really true. Assad is in a fight against al qaeda - the guys who killed 3,000 Amicans on 9/11. For some strange reason *cough, obama is a muslim brotherhood manchurian candidate* our presitard is hellbent on helping al qaeda. As long as the U.S. stays out of it, Syria is a problem for its dicatator and the terrorists to figure out. Once we start bombing and killing civilians in a show of force to punish Syria for killing civilians, we expose Israel to attack, not from Syria, but from Iran.

You have to be pretty stupid to interject yourself into a skunk fight.

11
posted on 08/28/2013 2:43:35 PM PDT
by Sirius Lee
(All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")

Not so fast. My guess is the U.S has interests in Syria especially because our ally, Israel, is affected by just about everything that goes on in Syria, not to mention Syria's ties to another dangerous rogue state trying to become nuclear, Iran. However, that is not say we should be somehow going to war against them. The so-called "Bush Doctrine" is stupid and anti-American.

Why do these people, movements, ideologies swing from one extreme to another? I'm a libertarian (small "L" - I'm in the Republican party) and I see no reason to be isolationist and pull the covers over our heads. Reagan had a good perspective in foreign affairs and defense. "We maintain the peace through our strength..." He was loyal to foreign allies and dealt carefully, wisely, circumspectly, but decisively with questionable and non-ally foreign countries. He seems to have been the last president to understand the use of sound verifiable intelligence to influence our interests abroad including stealth and surgical strikes when necessary instead of the mutton-headed baseball-bat diplomacy Bush favored in invading Iraq and setting the table for Obama to continue.

At one time we could have possibly got behind some rebels that would have been friendly to the west and US but that train has long left the station.

If King Obama would actually ask congress or present an argument to the American people, he was two possible positions:

1.) Secure or destroy the Chemical weapon so not to be use against the US or our Allies. Unfortunately, this strategy takes a lot of Balls with boots on the ground. We do not have Panetta or Hillary to send Obama to the gulf course, start the attack, then pull him off the golf course to "oversee" the operation.

2.) Obama could make the Hitler vs Stalin argument. Although the rebels will not support the US and will be a threat, it is better than Assad as an agent of Iran and the Shia Crescent. No way would the King admit to this.

However, after Syria turns into a terrorist day camp, the apologist for the King will spin the lesser of two evils and Obama knew this all along.

“Yes, this is really true. Assad is in a fight against al qaeda - the guys who killed 3,000 Amicans on 9/11. For some strange reason *cough, obama is a muslim brotherhood manchurian candidate* our presitard is hellbent on helping al qaeda. As long as the U.S. stays out of it, Syria is a problem for its dicatator and the terrorists to figure out. Once we start bombing and killing civilians in a show of force to punish Syria for killing civilians, we expose Israel to attack, not from Syria, but from Iran.”

When Obozo Liar decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured  for the very first time in history  that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaeda or any enemy, who has killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11 or in the past.

Quite an alliance! The al Qaeda Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation, whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. The same killing thugs, who killed our ambassador and 3 others in Benghazi last September. He refused to send our military to help those Americans and allowed them to be slaughtered in Benghazi. Yet, he will use our military to fight against Syria’s enemies, al Qaeda.

What would have happen to FDR if he had ordered our Flying Tigers to attack the army of China instead of Japans air force and troops in China? The same evil Japanese military that killed our sailors and others on December 7, 1941. The same evil Japanese military which slaughtered millions of innocent Chinese with their cruel aerial bombings and on the ground military slaughter and rape of innocent Chinese.

24
posted on 08/28/2013 3:40:46 PM PDT
by Grampa Dave
( Obozoliar and his thugs in his outhouse lie 24/7/365. They are unable to tell the truth.)

AMAZING how quiet the Anti-War liberal left is on yet another pending undeclared war by the Peace Prize President Obozo Liar, isn't it??

LBJ went from being a so called great president with the liberals with his war on poverty, which is still being lost, to one of the worse presidents ever after he deepened the Nam War because of the so called Gulf of Tonkin event.

Now, Obozo Liar appears to be following in the footsteps of LBJ with his lies about Assad and Syria, while covering for the Muslim Brotherhood Thugs and al Queda in Syria.

"Obozo Liar is drawing us in and he will go with or without the consent of the Congress and the Consent of the Governed. This could be an impeachable act if he botches it and was not legally covered. What's it to him if a few US pilots get shot down, some guys get seriously injured in the cruise missile prep on our ships, Americans citizens are kidnapped by Hezbollah in Beirut,, US Embassy and consulates across the Middle East are MANPAD-ed with major strikes, and otherwise all hell breaks loose. Domestically, he can get NSA, Obozo care, Fox News wiretap-gate, IRS-gate and Benghazi off the front pages."

If Obozo Liar decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured  for the very first time in history  that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaeda. Quite an alliance! The Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.

25
posted on 08/28/2013 3:43:52 PM PDT
by Grampa Dave
( Obozoliar and his thugs in his outhouse lie 24/7/365. They are unable to tell the truth.)

Every retired military officer I’ve seen on TV has stated that there are no US security interests at stake regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

I agree that the conflict between al Qaeda and Assad is not a US security interest.

I do think, though, that al Qaeda potentially possessing chemical weapons is an issue of US security due to terrorist delivery systems and the willingness of terrorists to suicide while killing hundreds/thousands of people.

An aerosol can similar to a bug bomb released at a sporting venue in the US could be devastating.

Obama is not talking about doing anything to capture/destroy WMDs, so my concern will not be the motive behind any action he might take.

32
posted on 08/28/2013 4:48:45 PM PDT
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)

I was trying to summarize demands of various types and shadows of L(l)ibetarians, because like feminists, various liberaltarians have stated support for every side of every argument, each depending on the group their trying to persuade. The official Libertarian Party has its official platform on the Net, BTW, for those who don’t mind spending much time divining the meaning of every word and implications.

Yes, it is true that Assad is aligned with Iran. The problem though is this - when it comes to geopolitics and trying to distil probable ramifications going forward, things are never black and white. Syria has been another Alawite minority leadership for decades, and while they have been a constant thorn in the side of the West/Israel it has been largely a stable situation. Just like Iraq under Saddam, or Egypt under Mubarrak, or even Libya under Gaddafi (once he stopped financing terrorists taking down planes and decided to focus on simply being mad), radical Islam was more or less kept firmly under control. Those strongmen were definitely not saintly, and every now and then you'd hear of Israel sending some F-16s to bomb some random site in Syria or Gaddafi threatening to expose some financial dealings with Sarkozy, etc. But generally it is a stable relationship in the vein of how cops sometimes have a 'relationship' with a criminal gang ...where the gang is operating, but they know not to shoot a cop or to do certain types of crimes, and the cops arrest the gang members but generally don't do a huge operation to get the gang's leadership. Not the best of situations, but a situation that can create a 'stable relationship' for a very long time.

Now, change that. Since Assad is aligned with Iran, let's take him out.

The first (probably the main) question that should be asked is WHO WILL BE THE REPLACEMENT. I think that is the problem that has plagued a lot of Western influence in other countries, where certain leaders are replaced without careful thought on who will fill the power vacuum created.

Now, let's look at this particular situation. The groups seeking to replace Assad are aligned with Jihadi organizations, and are already executing attacks on minority groups (Alawites, Christians, etc) in the parts of Syria that they control. Those groups are unlikely to be friendly towards Israel if the problem was Assad's relationship with Israel. Or take Egypt. Egypt some decades back was one of the main adversaries to Israel, engaging in serious war with the Jewish state. With Mubarrak, Egypt not only had normal relations with Israel, but it became the USA's main ally in the region. When Mubarrak was taken out, the Muslim Brotherhood started rattling sabres against Israel, and it is only with the new revolution (coup?) weeks back that they were taken out. Or look at Libya ...Gaddafi was not a nice guy, but are the people running the place now better than he was or far dangerous?

I cannot predict the future, but I can assure you that if Assad is removed in a year or so people will be wishing that hadn't happened.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.